Slashdot Mirror
Use Multiple Channels for Faster Wireless Networking
icypyr0 writes "The Register reports: 'Current dual-mode 802.11 'a' and 'b' access points use only one of Wi-Fi's 11 RF channels at a time, with users taking turns. The Engim chipset can 'see' all 11 at once, and can use the three non-overlapping ones (1, 6 and 11) in parallel, increasing total throughput and enabling features to be incorporated in silicon that are usually implemented, at extra cost and performance degradation, in software.'"
Unfortunately the neighbors decided to microwave a burrito and their throughput went all to hell.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Well, my polish is not that good (except my RPN/RPL) so i'll take your word for it....
....Excuse me, but
How many pollocks did it take to acheive this?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
WOW! 110 Kilometers! What is that, like 500 feet?
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Err... My polish is crap, but unless I am mistaken they seem to have used a 500mW aplifier and a 27dbM antenna to boot.
What's next? Sticking it in the middle of Aresibo and claiming half a light year range?
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I guess using two pringles cans instead of two really did the trick.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
110kms??? What's that in freight trains?
or how many of the sears tower layed on it's side?
Maybe there's hope for me getting a signal down the hall?
Naaaahhhhh.......
or 66 miles for the math impaired (sigh). Still, that's rad! You could access that across the English channel!
stuff |
(error 1337 destination page /.ed)
Is increasing the range of current wireless networking equipment really what is needed. I know i personally am turned off from wireless not because of the lack of range, but the lack of speed. There is certainly some cool factor being able to get that masssive a distance, but I dont see this as making wireless more desirable to anyone.
Hey - that antenna they're using looks a lot like the one from this story. Of course, he only claims a LOS range of 10 Miles.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
I for one find it ironic that someone can detect and possibly decode my WiFi signal from roughly 70 miles (per the new world WiFi record) but I can't get a useable signal on my laptop three rooms away from the WAP.
Anyone got a Polish->English translator?
I checked Google, Babblefish & Dictionary.com with no luck.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
So this is a relatively cheap method to get Internet access in distant locations, specifically in mountains, where it is difficult to get a wire.
Regards
The article claims the experiment used off-the-shelf, commercially available, unmodified components (1.1m / 3.5ft parabolic antenna and a 500mW amplifier). Experiment was conducted in a mountainous region in southwestern Poland.
:)
So this isn't all that bad... considering the average laptop wireless card puts out, what, 20mW? 50mW? using a 500mW amp to achieve a much greater distance is pretty sweet. By comparison, the article quotes a Swedish experiment which used stratospheric baloons and a 6W amp, but they don't mention the distance achieved.
Mind you, rules about how much power certain appliances / transmitters can put out with or without a permit vary across the globe, and I'm not sure whether 500mW is legal for private unlicensed use in Poland or not. But if it is, more power to them.
Now, where can I get mine??
Have EVDO, will travel.
Here
is the story from July of an outfit getting 310km using WiFi from ground to a balloon. This was done by Alvarion and the Swedish Space Corporation and acknowledged by Guinness (as in world records not as in beer).
Good thing they did that in Poland. If they had tried this in the US, they'd have been sued by DirecTV for hacking a satellite TV system and the RIAA for trying to set up a P2P link. Of course, none of this would matter since they'd all be in a 3x2 federal pen cell awaiting for months to be charged with setting up a data link that could be used for terrorism ...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
105 km is a good ways off. But Amateur Radio operators have been getting better than this with their voice transmissions (and possibly digital) on frequencies from 50 MHz to 10 GHz at the 2003 September VHF QSO Party.
See some of their setups at http://www.arrl.org/contests/soapbox/?con_id=53.
Our university station was making contacts on frequencies greater than 2.4 GHz for distances longer than 200 miles. Contrary to common sense, Line-of-Sight is not necessarily required to get microwave transmissions to work over long distances. But they're very weak ;-)
The article already is almost dead... Can't check how they did it, BUT... the biggest problem isn't signal power, that part is easy with even a minimal amp and decent parabolic grid antenna. The tough part is the curvature of the earth. Beyond 10 miles or so, you have to get your antennas substantially off the ground, otherwise the amps and high gain antennas make absolutely no difference...
> I wonder how many pringles cans that took.
275,000
They connected them end to end in an unbroken chain between the base station and client.
It will only mean that last mile solutions will become more plausible for those who don't live within a couple miles of their CO. This is a Good Thing, as having Dial-Up and Satellite as your only options is pretty unbearable.
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
> I know you're joking, but assuming that a :)
> pringles can is 9.25in tall (the best figure I
> could find), it would take 450,082 end to end
> to reach that distance.
Pringles cans are bigger when measured in cm.
You also meant "Oops"
It's going to be one of those days, eh?
I did a 21.7 mile shot using Cisco Aironet BR342, Andrew 19dB solid dishes, and YDI
500 mw amps.
I'm a bit embarrased to admit using a wireless LAN product for backhaul work, but some morons overtightened
the patch cable on an Andrew P2F 5.2-5.8 GHz 2' dish hooked to a WiLan AWE-120 5.8 GHz radio and put their link out
of service.
Despite extensive tweaking the link never managed more than analog modem speeds. It helped in recomissioning the UNI band stuff, but was otherwise
useless for hauling traffic.
802.11[bag] is NOT an access product. Take a look at Alvarion's Breeze Access II, or better yet just wait for an
802.16 product meant to do access work.
802.11[bag] is NOT a mobile access product. That market belongs to licensed band products with ISDN like performance offered by cellular companies.
Anecdotal evidence of mobile access to one police department in a town of 12,000 does not equal proof of concept for operation in urban areas; its plain
dumb luck coupled with no competing ISM band ISP(yet).
802.11[bag] is NOT a backhaul product. Backhaul radios are made by WiLan, Redline, Aperto, Proxim, and others. The minimum cost is $2,500 an end just for
the radio, most of them are in the UNI band, the full duplex products are generally split band 5.2/5.7 GHz, and they provide typically eight to ten
mbits for entry level products, unlike 802.11b which NEVER, EVER gets 11 mbits in long shots, with 1 or 2 mbits being the typical rate.
802.11[bag] SHOULD NOT BE DEPLOYED BY MONKEYS. Are you a MoNkEy? If you haven't read Matthew S. Gast's 802.11 book published by OReilly and you
don't fully grok the implications of the shared MAC layer, you are just throwing nuts and filth from the treetops into the already busy ISM band.
Slashdot's coverage of other topics is relatively even. The coverage of radio is focused on 802.11[bag] and this is quite laughable most of the time
to those of us who have actually owned and operated a wireless ISP. Personally I think the editors ought to be giving us a whole lot more information
on ICOM's D-STAR, a 23cm (1.2 GHz) amateur band voice/data system.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Actually you can't use a 24db antenna with a 100mw card. The maximum EIRP allowed under the FCC for point to point is 8 watts (39db) and 4 watts for point to multipoint. If you use 100mw (20db) input into a 24db gain antenna, your total EIRP will be 44db or 25 watts. Not legal at all. Also not healthy to stand in front of the antenna for more than a few minutes.
If you have a big fat wallet. Looking either Breezenet gear ($1000 US per radio) which freq hops for security but at 3MB transfer.
For only around $10K, you can get Tsunami gear 100Mb PTP. It runs 5.4Ghz, just don't stand infront of it.
Wirless side note. I work with last mile wireless gear. It's cool, but also on our tower is XMRadio. These fookers run at 2.478 (Yeah they don't bother to tune their antenas much). Do the math here... 200Watt radio, 12-14DB gain antenea. Licensed at 200Watts at the antenea. Our spectrum analyzer pulled them in as the stongest signal WITHOUT and antenea. Our RF tech figured out they were running at about 1800Watts at the antenea.
The good news is there are no birds nests on the tower at all.
So come on down and have a cookout.
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
Below is my rough, quick and dirty translation of the article. You will have to mach the text to the pictures yourselves. AND it's Polish, not polish. For the difference of meaning see your favourite dictionary.
----
Wi-Fi - World Record - 110 km @ 2.4 GHz
Two-way DSSS communication in 2.4 GHz band at a distance of 110 km
INTERLINE company, leading Polish microwave antenna producer, set itself a goal to check possibility of establishing a wireless link in 2.4 GHz band with sequential spectrum spread DSSS (802.11 b standard) at a range currently being only a subject theoretical dispute. The aim of the enterprise was a practical assessment of possibilities and study of phenomenas concerning such a link.
It should be stressed that the link built is typical ground link and that diversivies it from the one built at the end of 2002 by Swedish company Alvarion and Swedish Space Corporation, which used a stratospheric baloon.
What is equally important, all elements used in the INTERLINE experiment are off-the-shelf, unmodified equipment available comercially (1.1 meter parabolic antenna and a 500 mW amplifier). Swedish experimentators used 2.4 m parabolic antenna and a 6000 mW amplifier.
Two localisations were chosen for the link: Wrocaw (a city) and a Hala pod Sniezka (Sniezka is a highiest mountain of Karkonosze), S-W from Jelenia Gora. The distance is around 110 km.
People
In the experiment actively participated:
Piotr Kroplewski - owner of the INTERLINE
Wiesaw Karpowicz - Manufacturing Manager
Maciej Kaminski - Technical Division Manager
Krzysztof Mularczyk - Wireless Network Specialist
Krzysztof Juszczyszyn - Manufacturing Technologist
Localisations
One of a key stages of the experiment was a choice of localisations for stations which were to create a point-to-point link. First of them is a 11 stage house on a one of Wroclaw's districts.
Second one, key to the experiment, is a glade by the summit of nieka, nerby Dom lski shelter (1400 meters above sea level)
Equipment
For the experiment following equipment was chosen:
Antenas: PARABOLIC maxi, 27 dBi - product of INTERLINE
Access points: INTEL Pro/wireless 2011 Access Point - made by SYMBOL
Cables and connectors: cables BELDEN H-1000, H-155, RG-316, connectors VITELEC
Wireless cards - Lucent ORiNOCO PC Card Silver/chipset Agere, ZCom XI-300/chipset Intersil
aMPLIFIER - 2.4 GHz, 500 mW
Of course there were also 2 laptops. Additionally we had: UPS, a set of tools, spare cables, connectors and a gas solder (just in case).
End-point Wroclaw
As the date of the experiment was set a time between 12th and 14th of September 2003.
First stage was mounting and directing an antena in Wroclaw to point towards nieka mountain. Due to good visibility in Wroclaw in the day of installation (2003.09.12), this mountain, which is 1602 meters above sea level, was clearly ivsible. During the directioning vertical angle was important, due to the fact, that the other end of the link was 1400 meters above sea level.
Installation components
1. Access Point
INTEL Pro/Wireless 2011 Access Point + Amplifier 2.4GHz/500 mW
(here you can read yourself)
2 Antena cable
Belden H-1000
Length: 5 meters
plugs: type N
3 Connector
INTERLINE N/RP-BNC
Length 30 cm (0.3 m)
plugs: type N and RP-BNC
4 ANTENA
INTERLINE PARABOLIC maxi
type: directional parabolic antena
gain: 27 dBi
radiation angle: 4degrees/6degrees
Installation - Karkonosze mountains, Kopa-nieka
On 14th September 2003 all the equipment has been transported with OPEL Frontiera (we had obtained permission of the Karkonosze National Park authorities) to the meadow near the nieka's summit.
On the installation place weather was as usually in the mountains. Almost all the time the place was covered by clouds. Only from time to time for a dozen seconds wind split the clouds and we were offered splendid views of surrounding mou
You can run 1 watt into a 6dbi antenna. For point to point you need to reduce your transmitter power 1db for every 3db increase in antenna gain. This means the max antenna gain for 500mw would be 15dbi. Add 9db to the gain to get 24bdi and you need to drop power another 3db or 250mw. 100mw would be legal at 27dbi but not 500mw. Since you need to increase total gain 6dbi every time your double your distance this would make this shot easy with 27dbi antennas and 500mw amps. I have heard of 20 mile links using legal power levals/antennas. The 500mw amps make this easy. To do this legaly would require very high gain antennas perhaps more than 33dbi. This would be the max legal output for 125mw. Most really good radios put out 100mw. I imagine that a 8 foot dish feed with a biquad antenna might do it.
Are 1,6, and 11 the only channels that don't overlap?
More throughput but more pesky interference with phones and whatnot.
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
Of course, if you use the entire 2.4 GHz band, your neighbor can't. That's part of the reason why we have multiple channels to keep everybody from running into each other time. I highly doubt this group has bothered to test what kind of downside there is for a standard-issue WiFi setup operating 100 yards away.
Any connection uses actually, the three channels around it for the connection anyways,
if you've ever tried actually haveing 11 acess points on different channels you'll notice massive interfearence
come comment on the madness at http://slashdot.org/~phreak03/journal/
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
no 'g'?
but it's a good idea.
Hopefully, other chipset makers (TI, etc.) follow suit, which in turn will reduce costs (thx to competition).
Of course, if it can do all three, 'b', 'a', 'g' separately, and each with the parallel-ness, that would kick ass.
This type of idea is not new, and I have seen it in wireless routers/nics for months. The primary drawback is that if you are using up all those channels, your neighbour's wireless network won't have anywhere to go. Conversely, if you are that neighbour, it wouldn't make you very happy.
I consciously decided against buying something like this for that very reason when I bought my wireless hardware, even though the cost difference was negligible.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
Take up all the channels, get a stronger transmitter, and knock their wireless out!
802.11 is the IEEE standard, and the 'b' section of that pertains to a wireless network capable of 11 MBps (the 11 in 802.11b has nothing to do with the 11Mbps theoretical throughput, just a coincidence.) In reality, 802.11a, b, and g operate in the 2.4 GHz range, like the 2.4GHz cordless phones.
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
You would only need a hardware upgrade if you wanted each client to be able to make use of multiple channels simultaneously and reach that 50Mbps throughput figure quoted in the article.
Otherwise it's a solution for reducing bandwidth contention in heavily trafficked networks (and protecting 802.11g users from bandwidth degradation by 802.11b clients, as mentioned).
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
Well, it's kinda handy when you don't want any, ah, wires.
Yeah, instead of driving a long vehicle with multiple rows, everyone could be in the front seat! Too bad if it makes it difficult for others to change lanes or bypass problems.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
As if setting up a wireless network in an apartment wasn't a big enough pain in the ass already, now I've got to worry about the yokel next door hogging all the available channels?
This is going to casue more problems in resedential areas than it will solve.
While it's been duely noted that using up more channels could interfere with others who are trying to use 2.4, there are a number of applications I can see that would be useful for this type of setup.
Large old office buildings that arn't wired for ethernet, large warehouses, and people who live on large plots of land.
Yes, if you are living in a typical burb or in the city and try to use one of these you could run into issues with running out of channels. However not everyone lives/works in small areas.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Yep... but you have to be careful what you're using is right for your application. If you're using WiFi to go accross the room, you should be using Bluetooth.
This just sounds like a new form of bogarting to me. The whole idea of there ever being multiple channels in the first place was so that everybody would have a chance of finding a free one -- things like this go right against that idea.
..... I need to have a power cable, so I don't mind having a network cable as well.
If it isn't actually illegal, it's certainly anti-social. But then again, I don't use any wireless kit anyway
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Based on reading the article they are talking about a software defined radio (SDR) which is capable of operating discrete carriers and user communities on each of the 3 non-overlapping channels. They are not talking about bonding all 3 channels into a single data link.
Based on the article the chipset will be *capable* of using all 3 non-overlapping 2.4Ghz ISM channels. That will allow the associated users to be split across the 3 channels rather than all on a single channel and competing for access to the channel.
The same tradeoffs that drive WLAN design today will still exist. Its not a panacea, but it does add new possibilities to the engineer's set of available solutions.
By opening up the front end of the radio they can look at the whole band and do some very interesting noise reduction techniques. This is alluded to in the article, but I think its the most promising part of the chipset. The ability to identify and reduce the affects of wideband noise will got a long way to improving reception of WLAN signals....
While combining channels may be a somewhat decent idea, it has a serious drawback: you lose your usable channels! I believe that maximum feasible number of users on any one access point is about 50, right? That's on channels 1,6,11. Sure you get more speed by using just one channel and sharing the resources of all 3, but hell, now only about 17 people can use the network!
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
The licence that 802.11, A, B, G, etc. falls under says that if you inferfere (and you are discovered to be the culprit), you can't use it. I'm paraphrasing but I suspect that if you saturate the bandwidth available in the frequency and you get outed, then you'd have to stop using at least all the frequencies or the offending radios.
Dlink's AirExtreme G products advertise speeds up to 108 Mbps. Their literature implies that they use two wireless channels to achieve this speed.
I have their wireless card & router, but can't get the 108 speed because of some legacy b adapters in the network. The G speeds are quite nice - even though 802.11b's theoretical speed is higher than my DSL bandwidth, it's actual performance was quite dissapointing.
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
The 2.4Ghz bandwidth used by 802.11b and 802.11g have overlaps. The 5Ghz used by 802.11a and upcoming 802.11h (802.11a with Power Management) have non overlapping channels.
802.11g => ~32Mbps throughtput x 3 non-overlapping channels = ~90Mbps total usable bandwidth
802.11a => ~25Mbps throughput x 12 non-overlapping channels = ~300Mbps total usable bandwidth
802.11h => ~25Mbps throughput x 24 non-overlapping channels (due to better pwr mgmt) = ~600Mbps total usable bandwidth
You can read this for a little more info.
Unless of course, you want a faster speed. By my understanding Bluetooth is about 1/10 the speed of wifi (unless I heard wrong.) And that's just 802.11b, not g.
I've got more mod points and GMail invi
Except that .11 is cheap and easy to get/ impliment while bluetooth is almost nonexistant.
I do security
Incorrect. 802.11g's practical max throughput is around 25Mbps (Half of theoretical max) and even if all of your clients are running .11g cards, you have a shared bandwidth topology. Given the same restraints, the almost 100% bandwidth advantage of 100baseTX will show.
In fact a switched 10baseT network will perform about as well as an 802.11g network, and possibly better if you can run all of your systems in Full-Duplex mode (Not a given for 10baseT hardware)
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
That's a switched network, not a 'dedicated' one. Yes, the RF channel is a 'dumb hub' but many 100baseTX implementations are also 'dumb hubs'. 100baseTX Switches are ubitquous now, but that's only happened in the last couple of years, and many large networks are still hub based due to cost reasons.
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
Maybe I'm missing something, but could you not achieve the same effect by whacking in two wifi cards and using some loadbalancing scheme in software? I don't see why this would be any slower than a hardware implemented solution, I think the CPU cycles spent are hardly the bottleneck here. Having said that, I think this is a silly solution that only wrecks the whole shared spectrum idea of wifi. If I were a wlan network admin, I would find (packet analyze) and block these guys. (not applicable on public networks ofcourse).
Whether wireless will work quite this well, I don't know.
Would a card like this, integrated with airsnort and appropriate drivers allow quicker characterization of the network traffic in an area?
I do security
What Engim is doing is actually a good bit more sophisticated than any of the Slashdot posts imply. When you transmit, you usually have two types of bandwidth: how much bandwidth you are using, and how much you are interfering with. For instance, a simple AM broadcast will require maybe 8KHz of the spectrum on which it actually transmits data. Since transmitters are imperfect, however, it may actually interfer with transmitters on, say, 20KHz of spectrum.
As a result, if you're in a big company, and set up 3 off-the-shelf 802.11b access points, on 3 different theoretically non-overlapping bands, you'll still get something on the order of, maybe, 1.6x the bandwidth you'd get with one.
What Engim does is it has an insanely fast ADC/DAC front-end, that grabs the entire 802.11b/g spectrum, including all the bands. Then, they have a fancy DSP that looks at the bands together, figures out how they interfere with each other, and sorts them out. As a result, in a theoretical world, where only notebooks were transmitting to the access point, they would have 3x the bandwidth. They do fancy transmitting techniques, so that notebooks on all 3 bands can hear at the same time. So if the wireless access point was transmitting, and all the notebooks receiving, they would, again, have 3x the bandwidth.
The problem is that notebooks don't have this sort of technology, so when they transmit, they cause interference for other notebooks. If the Engim WAP transmits on band 1 to notebook A, and notebook B transmits on band 2 at the same time, the transmission from notebook B may interfere with that from the WAP. As a result, in practice, it's a little less than 3x the bandwidth, but not a heck of a lot less. They try to juggle notebooks between bands, based on location, so this doesn't happen, but it doesn't really work too well.
The technology they have is wicked cool, actually. For those worrying about interference -- it's really not a problem. First of all, this isn't for personal WAPs, but for $1000 access points you'd see on an IBM or Microsoft campus. They won't be going in apartments any time soon. You need a minimum of 3 very expensive chips for a single WAP (RF front-end, ADC/DAC, and DSP). Those places don't tolorate employees setting up their own WAPs anyways.
Second, you still have the remaining bands. The way 802.11 works, with the interference issues described above, if I set up a WAP, and my neighbor sets up a WAP, we will be interfering. We'll both have wireless networks, but both with reduced bandwidth. You can still set up your own WAP on any of the remaining bands, and it'll work -- it's just that if you try to send a packet at the same moment as the Engim network, you'll get a collision and retransmit. This is what happens anyways. 802.11 was never designed to have many, non-interfering bands. It was designed to have many, interfering, overlapping networks, with packet collisions. By design, the total bandwidth of 5 overlapping networks, in the same area, is the same as if there was only one. Each network gets 1/5 of the bandwidth then. This is the exact issue Engim technology is meant to address.
In terms of cell phones, etc. my impression is that the Engim technology was actually smart enough to look for "interference sources" and try to pick bands around them. This last bit is from an Engim PowerPoint slide, so I'm not sure if it's actually implemented or vaporware.
This will destroy wireless ISP communities.
I already have only -2- channels that I can reliably use in my house without interference. Every other channel is in use for ISP access in our community or gets interference from cordless phones and microwaves.
If you want more throughput, use different frequencies. Even if they are close to 802.11b/g that is better than going into the already established spectrum.
Yes, I know that this is not mandated or regulated space, so there is not much I can do to enforce my needs. However unregulated waves only work if people make an effort to play well together.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
This is good info to have, Keep in mind if you are trying to impliment wireless in a corporate environment, crappy range is a good thing. I have common problems with Cisco and Symbol AP's having such good range that too many users will pick up the signal in the cube farms of todays corporate america.
I try to place my AP's so that 25 users will access them from there desks or conference room. Some conference rooms that are very large I will place 2 or 3 AP's on different channels with the power turned all of the way down so it will balance the user load between the them.
Since there are only 3 non overlaping channels it is often a chore to design wireless in a room where the same channels dont overlap with each other. Poor range solves this problem. Think of how to put 5 AP's in a room with 3 channels, it can be done, poor range is the key.
We urge our users to use their wired connection and use their wireless when in meetings or on the road at other corporate offices.
They did. It's called the Excursion.
Holy shit people, who did I piss off with that inane comment to earn two Overrated mods? I mean, c'mon, some doofus actually burned a mod point on a comment already at 0? Wow. Must be the sig.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Your nyquist analogy assumes a simple binary symbol set (ie. "1" and "0"). The signal bandwidth is a function of the symbol rate. If your symbol set is larger than just two symbols (say 8, or 16, or ...), then you can deliver more bits per symbol. That's why "G" delivers more data bandwidth than "B" in the confines of the same channel signal bandwidth.
-rickThis is a great example of an intelligent use of the 802.11X protocols. Use only as much power as you need, and only where needed. As opposed to the usual (and wrong) tactic of using full-power in an attempt to squash a neighboring access point's signal.
-rickThere are some inaccuracies I'd like to point out, if you don't mind:
Somewhere I also read that Linksys will not support any turbo modes in their AP/Routers
Linksys is supporting a "turbo" mode, thanks to Broadcom's "Afterburner" technology, which is implemented as Linksys's "SpeedBooster" technology. Afterburner requires a new revision of Broadcom's 802.11g chipset, however, so previous G products can't be enhanced, only new products.
Atheros already had 108mb/s A support in turbo, allowing 45mb/sec throughput by using multiple channels
Atheros and Broadcom are taking 2 different approaches to "turbo" here; while SuperG uses multiple channels(and is proven to degrade other networks, albeit mostly Broadcom's, oddly enough) along with compression and other effeciency boosting technologies, Broadcom's Afterburner will not be using any sort of channel bonding, just effeciency boosting. This is an important distinction, since Atheros' implementation will be faster(more raw physical bandwidth), but Broadcom's implementation will be a "good neighbor" to other devices. Of course, if you even have to deal with other devices, you're screwed anyhow; just having a B device in the same sphere will require G devices to slow down to warn the B device, so all your fancy effeciency boosting tricks also get disabled.
Anyhow, check out Tom's Networking's review of Linksys's WRT54GS router; it is loaded with information on SuperG, Afterburner, incompatibilities, and performance.
Well, the post was the post, the sig is just a sig. But if you'd like I'll gladly explain it. It is meant to remind people that you shouldn't do things that adversely impact the lives of others based on your superstitions. At least that's my take on it, I didn't come up with it (although I wish I had).
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?